http://www.iosconews.com/articles/2007/07/24/news/news02.txt
Former undersheriff to be convicted after found guilty of violating terms
by Holly Nelson
TAWAS CITY - Former Iosco County Undersheriff Michael Bridson will be
convicted of two felony counts of eavesdropping.
So ruled 23rd Circuit Judge Ronald Bergeron on Wednesday, July 18,
following a three-hour hearing on a petition charging Bridson with
violating his delayed sentence agreement.
The finding came with just 21 days remaining of the one-year delay.
Had it not occurred, the charges to which Bridson previously pleaded
no contest would have been dismissed without conviction.
As it stands, Bridson is free on bond pending sentencing tomorrow,
Thursday, July 26, at 1 p.m. He faces a maximum of two years in
prison and, if the Michigan Department of Corrections' (MDOC)
previous recommendation stands, could be sentenced to 90 days in jail
as part of a two-year probation term. The conviction will be entered
after sentencing, Bergeron said.
It was a job description and testimony of Sheriff Michael Fischer
which proved to be Bridson's undoing, combined with the judge's
interpretation of the definition of "supervision."
Bridson was charged with seven felonies relating to 2005 allegations
that he used a computer to record personal phone conversations of
sheriff department employees. He subsequently struck a plea agreement
which resulted in the dismissal of all but two counts of
eavesdropping. He pleaded no contest to the remaining counts after
forging an agreement that these too would be dismissed under a
one-year delayed sentencing agreement.
One of several conditions of the delayed sentence order was that
Bridson "must not work, either directly or indirectly, in a position
involving authority over any Iosco County employee either directly or
indirectly" while the order was in effect.
It was Richard Mularz, the MDOC probation officer overseeing the
delayed sentence, who alleged Bridson violated this provision.
Back in May it became public knowledge that Sheriff Fischer intended
to bring Bridson back to work. A job description, created by the new
undersheriff and reportedly reviewed by the county labor attorney,
had Bridson doing paperwork duties, including review of deputy road
patrol logs.
Mularz, who was the first witness called by Thomas Weichel, the
special prosecutor appointed to handle the Bridson case, testified
that, upon learning of this, he counselled Bridson against taking the job.
Bridson did not heed the advice and, according to testimony, began
working at home under an amended job description from which the daily
log review duty had been struck.
There was some confusion as to whether the delayed sentence order
allowed Bridson to enter the sheriff department. His attorney, after
talking to the probation officer, subsequently called for a June 18
hearing to clarify this.
Meanwhile, Bridson worked from his home on payroll and budget
paperwork which was, according to testimony, assigned by
Undersheriff/Jail Administrator Gary VanRiper; packaged together by
the sheriff's secretary, Virginia Leibler; and delivered to Bridson's
home by the sheriff.
However, on June 18, when the sheriff was questioned under oath as to
what Bridson was doing, he testified that Bridson was reviewing the
daily logs of the two road patrol deputies, both victims in the case.
It was the sheriff's testimony, combined with the original job
description, which led to Mularz seeking the violation hearing, he said.
Under cross examination by Bridson's attorney, Duane Hadley, Mularz
acknowledged he had no personal knowledge that Bridson had reviewed
logs; agreed it was he who suggested obtaining clarification from the
judge as to what Bridson could and could not do; and indicated there
had been discussion about changing the job description.
Hadley also secured agreement from Mularz that he has had a lot of
help from unnamed parties in his oversight of Bridson and that, other
than this matter, he had no problems with Bridson.
Fischer was called to the stand and, although admitting to his prior
testimony, claimed he may have been mistaken and had no personal
knowledge of what Bridson had worked on at home.
The sheriff said he never personally asked Bridson to do anything
during this time frame, either directly or through VanRiper. It was
VanRiper, he said, who was supervising Bridson. He also said he did
not inspect the documents he delivered to Bridson and only gave him
what VanRiper or his secretary packaged together.
It appeared Bergeron did not believe the sheriff, giving the
prosecutor latitude to pin down inconsistencies from his prior
testimony over the objection of Hadley.
Fischer then admitted that some of the job duties Bridson was given
were the same as those he had as undersheriff. He also said the
original job description was modified and the title changed to
logistics officer prior to Bridson beginning the new job.
"It sounds to me that, if Mr. Bridson had any job description on May
28, this was the one. I think the sheriff is being pretty ambivalent
about what went on in that era," Bergeron said from the bench.
The testimony of VanRiper and Leibler also contradicted the sheriff's
June 18 testimony.
Both said Bridson was never given road patrol logs to review, but
were forced to admit they could not know what else he might have been
given by the sheriff.
They said Bridson was reviewing 2006 and 2007 payroll records to
ascertain that leave and overtime were properly recorded. He was also
sent some budget work, but never generated any work product before
the arrangement was terminated. (The Iosco County Board of
Commissioners refused to authorize the position for payroll; thus
Bridson was not being paid.)
The evidence seemed far from conclusive. The one person who could
have stated exactly what he did or did not do, Michael Bridson, did
not take the stand in his own defense.
Nor did either side seek a review of the daily logs which VanRiper
testified he required Bridson to maintain of his work at home.
In closing, Weichel reminded the judge that the probation officer had
counselled Bridson on three separate occasions against taking the position.
According to Weichel, attempting to label a job as non-supervisory
does not make it so. He contended review of a document was a type of
supervision and that it seems clear an effort was made to create a
position giving Bridson similar responsibilities to those he had as
undersheriff. Not all, he admitted, but clearly the job of review,
making it a supervisory position, according to Black's law dictionary.
Weichel acknowledged the testimony of VanRiper and Leibler but said,
given that they did not see any logs leave the department, the judge
must jump back to the sheriff's testimony that Bridson was reviewing
logs for mileage and gas consumption. That is providing an oversight,
he contended.
"If it barks like a dog, wags its tail like a dog. It clearly is a
dog," he said. "We ask that you find the defendant guilty of a
probation violation and set a date for sentencing."
Hadley noted that VanRiper and Leibler testified that daily logs were
not provided to Bridson and that the sheriff said he gave Bridson
only what VanRiper and Leibler provided.
Bridson has been an exemplary probationer, he said.
He also contended that Bridson did not start working from his home
until May 30, that occurring after countless rewrites of the job
description to remove anything smacking of a supervisory nature which
were of concern to the probation officer.
A further show of Bridson's desire to live up to the conditions of
the delayed sentence order was his request for the June 18
clarification hearing. That was, according to Hadley, done in an
attempt to avoid the pitfalls that people have been trying to lay for
him for almost a year.
"I don't believe the people have met a preponderance of the evidence," he said.
Bergeron disagreed and said the prosecution has, without a doubt, met
its burden.
"I'm amazed at what I heard," he said. "We're having a sentencing in
this case, as soon as can be scheduled."
Ruling the position to be one that involved supervision, Bergeron
added: "There's an old saying: What could have been."
Following the hearing, Bridson said he did not violate the delayed
sentence order.
Also last Wednesday, just prior to the start of the violation
hearing, Hadley withdrew his motion seeking to have Bergeron
disqualify himself from the Bridson case for bias and prejudice.
The motion cited comments and questions posed by the judge during the
June 18 clarity hearing..
Hadley's only explanation was that he had spoken about it with Weichel.
Weichel then attempted, and partially succeeded, in getting Hadley
and/or Bridson to say the judge was not biased.
Judge Bergeron entered the discussion, noting he has no personal
dealings or business with Bridson outside this case.
Both Hadley and Bridson agreed this to be true.
Weichel persisted. He contended a claim of bias can not be waived,
but must be proven not to exist.
Hadley countered that he could withdraw a motion and that is what he
intended to do.
Mike Bridson says that, on Monday afternoon, he passed a polygraph
examination with flying colors, the results of which were faxed to
this newspaper.
"I did not look at those logs. I am not guilty," he said.
Bridson said he paid the certified independent forensic polygraph
examiner, Thomas Harvey, whom he had never before met, from his own pocket.
I did it to prove to the people that I did not violate my probation.
I protected them for 23 years and I want them to know I am being
railroaded for something I did not do," he said.
According to Harvey's letter, Bridson was truthful when he said he
did not review patrol logs of two deputies.
"Bridson said he does not know if the judge and probation officer
will consider the test results, but will be submitting these to both
men," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Class, Professional, Ethical, and Competent Bug Sweeps, and
Wiretap Detection using Sophisticated Laboratory Grade Test Equipment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803
Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467
127 Eastern Avenue #291 Web:
http://www.tscm.com/
Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 E-mail: mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We perform bug sweeps like it's a full contact sport, we take no prisoners,
and we give no quarter. Our goal is to simply, and completely stop the spy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:19 CST